By the Witness Radio team.

Residents affected by the Tilenga oil project, along with civil society organisations, have rejected a progress report by TotalEnergies, arguing that the compensation and resettlement processes are unfair and inadequate.

In 2023, Jealous Mugisha Mulimba and 41 other families were sued by the Government of Uganda for refusing the compensation offered for their land and property, which were required for the Tilenga Resettlement Action Plan 5 (RAP 5), part of the broader Tilenga Project.

Mugisha is a smallholder farmer who had been deriving his livelihood from 2.5 acres of land, which he lost to the project.

“That land, however small you may see it, was my only source of income. I didn’t go to school to have a formal job. I squeezed every single bit of money I got from my land, and without it, life is a real struggle,” Mugisha told Witness Radio, visibly heartbroken.

In December 2023, Mugisha’s life and that of his family were thrown into disarray when the government acquired his land for the oil project. He and other affected community members rejected the government’s valuation and compensation offer, arguing it was far too low to sustain their livelihoods.

“For me personally, they wanted to give 5 million shillings per acre, yet land is more valuable in our area, and I had property on it, which I rejected. Many others who refused went through the same,” he said.

As a result, the government, through the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD), sued the project-affected families, requesting the High Court of Hoima to allow it to deposit the compensation into court accounts and to issue demolition orders for the project. The court ruled in favor of the government within just four days of filing the case, a process Mugisha described as rushed and unfair.

“We witnessed one of the quickest court rulings, with the court offering only a single hearing. In fact, the court informed some of our lawyers and community members only two days before the hearing. There was no time to prepare a defense, which caused the community to lose the case.” Mugisha added.

The discovery of oil in Uganda was initially welcomed by host communities and expected to boost local livelihoods and national economic growth. Critics now say the benefits are uneven, with large-scale profits going to the government and multinational companies, while affected residents suffer losses.

“The oil projects have caused a lot of suffering to people; there have been setbacks in their livelihoods because of inadequate compensation accompanied by gross violation of human rights to project critics.” Mugisha adds.

The Tilenga Project is operated by TotalEnergies (56.67%), in partnership with China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) (28.33%) and the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC) (15%). According to TotalEnergies’ report, the project acquired approximately 2,108 acres of land, affecting 4,954 Project-Affected Persons (PAPs). Of these, 205 (4%) experienced physical displacement requiring housing, while 4,749 (96%) experienced economic displacement, primarily due to the loss of livelihoods.

The report, prepared by Land and People Planning Ltd. and Interface Consulting Ltd., assesses RAPs 2–5 and benchmarks them against the project’s Land Acquisition and Resettlement Framework (LARF). It claims 99% compliance with compensation and resettlement, and 100% adherence to responsible resettlement principles.

While TotalEnergies claims 99% compliance with compensation and resettlement, residents like Mugisha highlight that on the ground, significant disparities persist, with many unable to sustain their livelihoods despite official reports.

Victims of the project say these exist only on paper, while the reality on the ground is very different.

“Sometimes they write good reports, but when you go to the ground, that’s when you realize their falseness. If the processes were fair, why did the government have to sue families instead of settling this matter in a way that benefits both sides?” Mugisha, who currently lives on clan land after the eviction, told a Witness Radio journalist, adding, “I wouldn’t be struggling at my age to find a place to live and food for my family.”

Efforts to get a comment from Total Energies on these grievances went unanswered. However, the Ministry of Energy states that the government and project developers are actively monitoring RAP implementation to ensure compliance.

“The latest social performance updates on land compensation under RAPs 2–5 indicate that the overwhelming majority of Project Affected Persons (PAPs) have successfully received their entitlements and, where applicable, have been resettled.” Dr. Patricia Litho, the Assistant Commissioner for Communication at the Ministry of Energy, wrote to Witness Radio.

Dr. Litho added that the remaining 1% of cases involve disputes such as ownership disagreements, ongoing succession processes, or refusal to accept the compensation.

About groups like Mugisha’s who refused compensation, Dr. Litho added that, “On the matter of individuals who challenged the valuation of their assets and chose not to accept the compensation offered—including the example you referenced in Buliisa District—the law provides a clear mechanism for resolving such disputes. Where communities cannot reach an agreement, the government may deposit the assessed compensation amount with the courts, allowing the project to proceed while preserving the rights of affected persons to pursue legal redress. The individuals in such circumstances remain fully entitled to challenge the valuation through the courts, and the judiciary ultimately determines the appropriate outcome.”

However, Margret Kemigisa, Legal Officer working with the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), highlights that many families affected by oil projects such as Tilenga continue to struggle to access justice, a claim disputed by Dr. Litho, who asserts that multiple grievance redress mechanisms are in place to address concerns raised by PAPs:

“Before any matter reaches court, the resettlement process under the Tilenga Project provides several engagement and grievance resolution mechanisms for PAPs established under the Resettlement Action Plans. Through these mechanisms, PAPs can raise concerns about asset valuation, compensation amounts, or any other resettlement-related issues. However, some PAPs may still choose not to accept the compensation offered even after the grievance mechanisms have been exhausted. In such circumstances, the government must balance two important considerations: respecting the rights of the affected persons while also ensuring that nationally significant projects proceed in accordance with the law.” Dr. Litho revealed.

But Civil society groups are raising concerns about the independence of Ugandan courts, arguing that justice for people experiencing poverty is often delayed or denied. After what was described as a “quick ruling” against Mugisha and the 41 other households, the residents and their lawyers filed an appeal on December 22, 2023, at the Court of Appeal. However, the case has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

“We have written three letters requesting that the appeal be fixed for a hearing. However, none of these letters has received a response so far. Generally, the hearing of appeals, especially time-sensitive cases such as this, has been very slow and frustrating for PAPs. Meanwhile, the cases filed by the government seeking to evict PAPs are heard expeditiously.” Adds Margret Kemigisa of AFIEGO, which is supporting the legal action of the affected families.

When asked about the status of the case involving the 42 households, the Judiciary spokesperson, His Worship Mawanda James, declined to comment, saying the matter is still before the court. “The matter is still in court. I can’t comment,” he said in a reply to Witness Radio.

AFIEGO also criticized the resettlement process for relying on intimidation, division of families, and coercion, which forced some families to accept inadequate compensation.

“The Tilenga project’s compulsory land acquisition processes have been marked by delayed, inadequate, and unfair compensation, as well as the use of threats, division of families, intimidation, and other tactics to coerce many low-income families to accept inadequate and unfair compensation.

As a result, many affected households are unhappy with the project, and call it a curse,” a May 17, 2024, statement by AFIEGO titled,” Last Man Fighting: Statement on Eviction Mr. Fred Balikenda and His Family for Total’s Tilenga Oil Project stated.

Now, as Total celebrates what it calls a milestone in involuntary resettlement, the fate of those who were supposed to benefit from the project remains uncertain. For Jealous Mugisha and others, it is now clear that both the government and multinational corporations are primarily profit-oriented

An elderly PAP in front of the Resettlement house in Buliisa (Inset: the house that was affected by the Tilenga project). Image credit: PAU

Civil society organisations under the StopEACOP Campaign have criticised an assessment commissioned by TotalEnergies on its land acquisition programme for the Tilenga oil project in Uganda, describing the report as lacking independence and credibility.

The Tilenga development will supply crude to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline which is designed to transport oil from western Uganda to international markets. The project has been widely contested by environmental groups and community advocates.

TotalEnergies commissioned Canadian consultancy Land and People Planning Ltd to conduct the assessment in the districts of Buliisa, Hoima and Kikuube. The report concluded that the company had addressed the core elements of the land acquisition programme and demonstrated commitment to transparency and continuous improvement.

However, the StopEACOP Campaign argues that the independence of the study is questionable. The coalition noted that TotalEnergies stated that an original assessor withdrew due to health reasons and that the Canadian firm was appointed as a replacement, without publicly explaining how key stakeholders were involved in the selection process.

Campaign coordinator Zaki Mamdoo said the report appeared to be designed to improve the company’s public image rather than provide a rigorous independent review. He added that the company’s suggestion that the Tilenga land process was ready for closure was difficult to reconcile with ongoing court cases filed by project affected people disputing compensation.

Activists also argue that the assessment does not address allegations of coercion, intimidation and pressure faced by communities asked to release land for the Tilenga project. Civil society groups have cited documented cases including the eviction of 42 families in Buliisa district following a court order issued before compensation payments were completed.

Diana Nabiruma of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance said communities have reported being warned that refusal to accept compensation offers could lead to court cases where they have little chance of success. She added that organisations supporting affected residents often observe bias and limited willingness by courts to address land disputes linked to oil developments.

In February 2026, the institute published research examining compliance with livelihood restoration commitments linked to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. The report identified significant gaps in implementation and warned that many affected households risk failing to return to their pre displacement socio economic conditions if corrective action is not taken.

Campaigners also questioned the timing of the TotalEnergies assessment as the company faces an ongoing case in a civil court in Paris. The court recently ordered the company to release documents that had previously been withheld, including market studies on compensation rates prepared by subcontractors, minutes from a human rights steering committee and a report examining flooding linked to the Tilenga project.

According to Camille Grandperrin, legal officer at the Friends of the Earth France, analysis of the disclosed documents suggests multiple areas where the project may not comply with international standards, including the IFC Performance Standard 5.

The StopEACOP Campaign also highlighted discrepancies in the number of people included in the assessment. The action plan referenced 4954 project affected people, while civil society estimates suggest that more than 100000 people could be impacted across both the Tilenga project and the wider pipeline development.

Critics argue that evaluating Tilenga in isolation from the broader pipeline infrastructure creates a misleading picture of the scale of social impacts. They also note that the report does not address flooding allegedly linked to the construction of the Tilenga Central Processing Facility.

Campaign groups say the testimonies of affected communities, including claims of restricted land use prior to compensation and pressure faced by activists and land defenders, raise serious concerns that require independent scrutiny. They argue that a broader and fully independent review of Uganda’s oil sector impacts is needed to provide credible information to investors, lenders and insurers.

Author: Bryan Groenendaal

Source: greenbuildingafrica.co.za